From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D30A1768A1 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:01:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C0ABD2D23C for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:01:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 264B72D22B for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:01:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EB3AC468DD for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:01:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1739f0c3-564e-da12-caad-30bf52d6cef6@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:01:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Oguz Bektas References: <20211014065148.281336-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <20211014065148.281336-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.010 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] pvestatd: fix rebalancing cpusets for cgroupv2 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:01:40 -0000 tested this by running a few containers with some cores, so that the majority will be used by the containers and then setting the `lxc.cgroup2.cpuset.cpus: 9-12` option for one container and restarting said container. Without the patch, it would not get assigned all cores set with this manual setting, if the `cores` parameter was lower. With this patch, it does get the cores assigned and other containers without fixed cores assignments are vacated to other cores. Assuming that this is the expected behavior that this patch tries to get back for cgroups v2: Tested-By: Aaron Lauterer On 10/14/21 08:51, Oguz Bektas wrote: > currently we only check the entry for cgroup v1 to decide if cores > should be rebalanced. extend the check to include cgroup v2 entries. > > reported in forum [0] > > [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/hard-set-streams-for-lxc-container.97768/ > > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > --- > PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm b/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm > index 7193388c..26d96bb2 100755 > --- a/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm > +++ b/PVE/Service/pvestatd.pm > @@ -343,8 +343,9 @@ sub rebalance_lxc_containers { > > my @cpuset_members = $cpuset->members(); > > - if (!PVE::LXC::Config->has_lxc_entry($conf, 'lxc.cgroup.cpuset.cpus')) { > - > + if (!PVE::LXC::Config->has_lxc_entry($conf, 'lxc.cgroup.cpuset.cpus') > + && !PVE::LXC::Config->has_lxc_entry($conf, 'lxc.cgroup2.cpuset.cpus') > + ) { > my $cores = $conf->{cores} || $cpucount; > $cores = $cpucount if $cores > $cpucount; > >